I don't see in the information you provided where the torque peaks in the T5, but according to Edmunds specs, its at 2400 rpms, not 4k.

But, yes, the 2.5T is more responsive off idle than the T5. Its past maybe about 15 mph that the T5 then runs away.

IF you want AWD, there is no T5 option. Keep in mind, though, AWD adds weight and drivetrain drag, which probably just about counteracts that off-the-line advantage that the low-pressure turbo provides.

I suggest you drive both. If you are primarily a city driver, I think you'll find the 2.5T more to your liking (although, if you are considering the T5, I suggest simply the FWD 2.5T). If you spend more time at higher speeds where passing power can be important (or at least intoxicating), the T5 is where its at.

"...Driving ImpressionsFrom inside, the Volvo S60 sometimes feels bigger than it is because its shape doesn't allow you to see the four fender corners. Driven hard around turns, it almost seems like a '90s version of a '60s muscle car. The relatively long throw of the five-speed gearbox adds to the retro feel.

The S60 doesn't offer the razor-edge handling of the BMW 330i. Pushed through bumpy, high-speed corners, the S60's steering can't keep up. The suspension is tuned for comfort, not hard cornering, so the body leans in the chase. But the ride is excellent, even over nasty bumps, even with the optional 17-inch wheels fitted with Pirelli P6 all-season 235/45HR17 radials.

The S60 is front-wheel-drive, and torque steer rears its head, especially with the more powerful T5. Stand on the gas and you'll feel a tug on the steering wheel. It's really no big deal, though, as you get used to it. Still, the S60 definitely engages the driver, because you have to pay attention to the steering when you're driving hard. But it's extremely steady at speed if the road isn't too bumpy.

The T5 produces prodigious thrust from its high-pressure turbocharger, but you need to keep the revs up to keep the engine responsive. The T5 won't impress you until the revs climb to 4000 rpm where the power comes on really strong. At 50 mph in fourth gear the engine is turning 2500 rpm, so you'll generally have to downshift to third gear to pass on a two-lane. Volvo's turbocharged engines get great gas mileage. With the five-speed manual transmission the T5 gets 21/27 mpg.

The brakes were on the soft side, but the ABS was very smooth. We didn't feel thrown forward in the seat under hard braking, as we have with other sports sedans, including the BMW 330i.

The steering is slightly heavier in the S60 AWD, because of the weight of the all-wheel-drive system. (Volvo prefers to say it has a more "on-center feel," which is fair enough.) The ride also is firmer on the all-wheel-drive version, using stiffer shocks to handle the weight. We think it's a worthwhile tradeoff to get the AWD's improved traction and handling in the rain and snow.

We drove over gravel roads in the S60 AWD, and the directional stability on this loose surface was excellent. Power in the S60 AWD is distributed between the front and rear wheels using a wet multi-plate clutch controlled by electronics, and the distribution varies according to conditions. With a steady throttle on dry pavement, about 95 percent of the drive is transmitted to the front wheels; but up to 70 percent can go to the rear wheels when required. The balance changes instantaneously. Of course other automakers say that, too; but the difference in Volvo's Active-On-Demand system is the degree of instantaneous-ness. When one wheel slips 15 degrees, far less than any human can detect, the balance of power shifts away from that wheel, thus replacing the slip with grip. In other words, it's just more secure and better stuck to the road when the weather gets nasty."....

Hello,I have a s60 2004 with the body kit, which makes the clearance very low, when i purchased it came with 15" wheels 195/60/15..but was touching everywhere, so i have decided to go for 17" wheels, i know the standard tires are 235/45/17, but the height is only 25.33 inches, But when you look at the S60 with options of 18" wheels, they use 240/40/18 which gives the height of 25.40 inches...So therefore i was thinking was wheather to choose 215/50/17..height 25.46 or 225/50/17 height of 25.86 inches.....WHICH IS MOST RECOMENDED FOR A SMOOTHER RIDE AND ALSO THAT IT WON'T OFFSET THE CAR'S HANDLING? ANY INPUT WILL GREATLY HELP....THANK YOU IN ADVANCE.....LIVE IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA.

I bought the car new (so I am the original owner) and it has 58,600 miles on it. It is in good condition, with only a couple of minor paint scratches. Edmunds TMV says I should get around 10 or 11K as a trade-in value, 12k or 13k for resale.

I tried to trade it in to get a new car (a Honda) and the dealership said they would only give me $5500 because CarFax says I received frame damage in a wreck I had. I called the autobody shop who did the repairs from that wreck and they said that they had to "pull and align" the unibody to get the new parts in, but there wasn't damage, per se. According to the work order, it took them less than two hours to work on it, so there was not significant damage. Is there anything I can do to get this mark off the CarFax record? If not, any suggestions on how I can get someone to buy my car for more than $5500 with my CarFax report?

Well, since the frame was bent, there was frame damage.They had to straighten the frame to install the new parts.According to Manheim, undamaged your car would wholesale for $8-9000.W/ the wreck, $5500 is a little low but understandable.Dealers hate dealing in cars w/ frame damage and bad Carfax's. It really limits their options.Personally, I would sell the car yourself.

I have owned an Accord V6 and have used both accords and volvos. Accords are generally considered more reliable and I had no problems with mine, but I plan to buy an s60 next time for the following three reasons: better traction, smaller dimensions, and whiplash protection.

Both cars are good bets, although it seems that a higher percentage of volvo owners get unlucky with their particular car. That said, and while just about everyone would give the Accord higher reliability marks, they rank close enough that I would suggest going with the one that satisfies your other criteria.

The Camry is a reliable car - why not buy that? I drive an S60 primarily because I have always had safety at the top of my list. The S60 gives me safety and a sports car peformance and look etc etc. I would have thought a Honda was a pedestrian choice quite frankly and not on the same page as a Volvo.

grantchstr - You're absolutely right. Aside from the fact that both the Accord V6 and the S60 are powerful mid-size sedans, your sportier and more prestigous S60 is rarely found on a potential Accord-buyer's shopping list. That said, since the top-of-the-line Accord is now pricier than the base model S60, and since according to iihs crash tests, the Accords with side/head air bags are actually a tad safer than the S60, a thoughtful response to picard12's question is warranted -- rather than calling him out on his "pedestrian" taste buds. Don't you agree?

Thanks, volomax. Now that I'm reading good things about the 2007 Subaru Legacy GT, I'm thinking about taking a hard look at that choice before pulling the trigger on an S60. The Legacy's iihs safety ranking, its AWD and new stabiltiy control, and its nimble handling are what attracts me. I'm also thinking that the Subaru might be more reliable over time. What do you think about the S60 2.5T vs Legacy GT comparison? Anyone else care to comment?

I will. Last year when I was shopping, I was very interested in the Volvo V50 and the Legacy GT wagon. I did consider the V70 as well but since it's almost impossible to get a manual V70, I shifted my goal. But I had plenty of seat time the the V70.

Although I really liked the Subaru's styling, reliability, and AWD technology, I was disappointed in the interior. It wasn't up to the quality of the Volvo. IMHO, the Volvo has superior ergronimics, amazing seats, and an overall higher level of product in the interior. The Subaru just felt cheap to me and since I'm looking at and touching the interior every day, it was important to me.

Now I did buy a Passat but keep in mind, I had to buy fast as my previous vehicle was totalled and I couldn't get the V50 as I wanted it.

Despite Subaru's wishes, their products aren't inthe same league as Volvo's or any other true luxury brands.Subaru makes a good car, but in terms of comfort, feel and safety it isn't a competitor for Volvo.The S60's seats are better, ergonomics are better. If you get rear ended in a Subaru you won't have the benefit of Volvo's WHIPS system, rollover protection in a Volvo is better.

All true - but how do you reconcile the widely-held belief that Volvo is an all-around safer car when the iihs crash test results say otherwise? Are there other crash test results I should be looking at?

The widely held belief is because Volvo has spent decades and millions of dollars being the safety leader - and telling us that. The other manufacturers have finally caught up due to IIHS testing. IMHO, that's a good thing.

The Volvo S60 ranks Good for Frontal, Acceptable for Side and Good for rear impact/head restraint.

The Subaru Legacy ranks Good for Frontal, Good for Side, and Acceptable for rear impact/head restraint.

2 out 3 for both.

Don't forget, the Volvo was introduced in 2001 and designed to meet those standards. The Subaru was introduced in 2005 and designed to meet those standards - which they didn't on the side impact until they improved the side airbags.

A new S60 is coming out for 2008 - I'm guessing they'll ace all 3 tests the IIHS does. Additionally, Volvo has made stability control standard on the S60. AFAIK, it's not available on most Legacy models.

As has been mentioned, the S60 is an older design. One that was penned in the late 90's and it still exceeds the current standards.The japanese are late comers to the idea of building cars that exceed the gov'ts standards. Too often they skimp on safety devices, whiplash protection for example, or make their safety features optional. Volvo does neither.

Lets say a particular Japanese model is awarded the same IIHS "good" rating as the Volvo in rear impact crash tests. Are you saying that the Volvo still wins because their WHIPS technology takes it to a whole new level?

Maybe then I can justify moving forward with the S60 -- despite its modest side-impact rating. I just don't want to find out the hard way that the emperor has no clothes... you know what I mean?

Hi Voxboy, I'm going to jump in here. I bought a 2006 S60 T5 (ex-service vehicle) this year, and a couple of months ago I got rear-ended. The head-rest was right there - my head hit the thing with a good thunk, but since there was so little - actually no space - between my head and the head-rest, I had no whiplash. By the way, WHIPS didn't engage - I wasn't hit that hard, but it is nice to know it's there.

Because I like its handling, I was about to buy the Audi A4 but the IIHS didn't like the models (rear impact-wise) until later in 2006 and I wanted to get something slightly used - read: cheaper.

I still feel vulnerable - a tad anyway - with S60's 'just ok' side impact ratings, and I don't know if Volvo has addressed this in the 2007 model. (Volvomax, you know anything about this?)

But I really read the IIHS and the Govt crash tests, and I reasoned that: Subaru Foresters didn't have Stability Control, Saabs have terrible reliability records, and it was more likely that I'd be rear-ended than side-impacted, so I bought the S60.

I like it - I have a few gripes - my right knee is too near the steering wheel shaft, the car makes no chirping sound when you lock it remotely, the true city mileage is around 19mpg, the T5 is bumpy and the turning radius is indeed pretty annoying...

But it's a very sturdy car, the T5 at least has a lot of power, it looks nice and damn, the seats are comfortable and good for tall people.

There is virtually no torque steer -- or turbo lag -- on the low-pressure turbo. The high-pressure turbo is another matter altogether. After having one since Feb/02 and putting 57,000 miles on it based in the Rockies in Colorado we can report no problems whatsoever. AWD is more than about driving in the snow. It's about wet roads, gravel roads, cornering and more. If you find a sweet deal on a used one go for it.

2007 model is unchanged. We just had a customer in an 05 get hit very hard in the side, totslled the car. No injury.Conversely, a brand new 06 Subaru WRX was hit in the side right in front of our dealership. Driver was carried away on a stretcher to the hospital. You cannot always place full faith in tests. They don't always replicate what happens in the real world.

Hi Confused, volvomax, philmo, etc. Thanks so much for your responses. I'm right there with you.

I pretty much resolved to get the S60 AWD with Dyanamic Stability, but decided to test drive the Legacy just to confirm my decision. Fyi, while I still find the '07 Legacy crash test results somewhat persuasive, it certainly doesn't feel like a safer car. It rides like a cheaper, insubstantial vehicle and I was surprised that it didn't instill much confidence. That may not be very scientific, but to echo volvomax's sentiments, I now believe more than ever that crash test results do not necessarily translate to real world conditions. And if that sounds like sour grapes, what supports that contention is the IIHS's "Injury, Collision and Theft loss" report which provides numerical ratings based on actual insurance claims filed over 2-3 years; despite the S60's modest side impact rating, the car has in fact proven supremely protective -- joining the ranks of the Passat, 9-3, and Quattro (recent awards not withstanding, the Legacys have resulted in about 25% more injuries).

So here I go -- plunging into the used S60 market. Do any of you guys have advice on things to look out for? How important is it to pay extra for a "certified" car, and would you ever buy from an ebay vendor? Any and all recommendations are welcome.

while I don't feel it needs to be certified, I'd personally want an extended warranty. Since a certified car comes with one, its probably easiest just to stick to certified.

It seems like you are looking for a recent model (let's say '04 and up?). If so, I can't think of anything in particluar you need to look for. Volvo seems to have the S60 pretty well ironed out by that year. Just be sure to try out several. Used cars, regardless of manufacturer, can vary greatly in the way they feel due to being abused by previous owners.

I don't want to start a war, and this really may vary by region, but I also feel the need to point out that Volvo dealers (at least here in NJ) typically overprice their used volvos. If that's the case in your area, don't get discouraged. It could take a while to find the right one for you, and remember that there is plenty of room to negotiate.